From: nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 02:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Anonymous Cowards
Message-ID: <199704200904.CAA10903@fat.doobie.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Timothy C. May wrote:
> for a long time we had several pseudonyms who contributed a lot.
> 
> However, in the past several months we've been seeing (apparently) drunken
> rants by "TruthMonger," "TruthMangler," "Bubba Rom Dos," and so on. And
> none of these are signed, so various "TruthMongers" are involved.

  I hardly think you need to be so polite as to add "(apparently)"
to the description of Toto's rants, whether she does so as TruthMonger
or not, since she certainly makes no bones about her personal habits,
herself.
 
> (One of the drunken ranters, "Toto," has apparently let his real identity
> slip a couple of times, or perhaps someone else is adding the "Toto" stuff
> to confuse things. It's also likely Toto and some of these other anonymous
> ranters are one and the same.)

  If you have questions about Toto's *real* (government approved?)
identity, or which posts she is (or is not) responsible for for, then
you might consider asking her via private email. I did so and found
her to be quite forthcoming about pretty much anything I asked her.

> In any event, the various anonymous posts in the past few months have been
> disappointing. Rarely does anything substantive come out of their
> anonymity. And they lend support to those who would restrict anonymity (I
> am not one of those) by using anonymity as a shield for cowardly insults
> and attacks.

  Substantive for whom? During the debates about Gilmore's moderation
experiment there was much discussion on the list as to what constituted
substance and what did not. There seemed to be three varying opinions
for every two cypherpunks addressing the issue.

  As far as claiming to not support the restriction of anonymity, while
at the same time labelling those who use it as "cowards," this seems
to me to border on hypocrisy.
  ("I don't support discrimination against people of color, even if 
they *are* shiftless and lazy.")
 
> So, the anonymous posters are not using the pseudonym capabilities digital
> signatures can provide.

  If you have such a deep-seated need to be able to label anonymous
posters with a consistent pseudonym, then perhaps you might suggest
that the government issue them pseudo-identity numbers.

> They're just scribblers on bathroom walls.

  Some who pay a significant amount of attention to all posts which
pass through the cypherpunks list consider many of their scribblings
to be "Stego" scribblings. And what may be seen as FUD and ranting
by some is seen as probing and filtering by others.

  Since you seem to be somewhat fixated on Toto, for whatever
reason (BTW, I have nude pictures of her available), I will offer
some of my own observations as to what I perceive to be the methods
to her madness.

  For starters, anyone who cares to reveiw her posts to the list
since her assumption of the Toto persona can verify the following:
1. She predicted the commencement of the moderation experiment.
2. She noted Tim's absence from the list in a matter of days,
  rather than the *weeks* that others took to note the absence
  of his posts.
3. She both predicted and confirmed most of the malefeasence in the
  moderation process instituted on the list and provided information
  as to how others could confirm these facts for themselves.
  (In this respect, I must add my personal opinion, as one who is
  involved in significant amounts of traffic/personality/methodology
  analysis of email traffic, that her intuitive logic provided more
  pertininent information, in some cases, than volumous databases
  and programs which others have spent years compiling in order to
  achieve the same results).
4. She has not spared herself from the pointed barbs which she 
  places up the butts of others on the cypherpunks list, as well
  as being considerably more forthcoming than most about revealing
  and taking responsibility for her shortcomings and biases in 
  both her perspective and her opinions.
5. She has the fortitude to allow her words to speak for themselves,
  for the most part, without the self-serving disclaimers and
  apologetist false humility used by some on the list.
6. The subtlety of her humor is second only perhaps to that of
  Tim May, and she shares his propensity for letting it stand
  on its own, without smarmy symbols, without fretting over it
  being recognized or appreciated.
7. When she makes use of anonymity or outright forgery on the list,
  she takes pains to leave her "pecker tracks" for all to see, if
  they care to pay the least amount of attention to the details
  of her posts.
8. She was the first (and only?) one during the moderation experiment
  to note that the battleground was not so much one of censorship, but
  of infowar.
  (For those who do not see the pertinence of this statement, I suggest
  that you borrow some of Toto's Crayolas, make a heading labelled
  "Spooks," and start drawing lines between posts.)

  For those who care to follow Toto's "pecker tracks" though the
cypherpunks list, I suggest that you look to her own posts for
the broad hints she gives as to how to do so.
  As well, Toto almost invariably uses 'single quotes' to indicate
emphasis, incorrect punctuation in regard to quote marks of any
genre, and enough commas to cause a worldwide shortage for others
who wish to use them.
  She also adds a personal (usually humorous) touch to any false
signature lines that she chooses to add to her posts in order to
shake loose the robotic mechanisms that most of us use to classify
and file away preconceived opinions as to our views of a message
based on the personality of the messenger.

  Perhaps some anonymous posters do use anonymity, as Tim suggests,
to protect their valued reputational capital from besmirchment or
devaluation. (Or to avoid it moving into the negative side of the
spectrum.)
  However, perhaps others use anonymity because they have other
concerns to address which do not rely on reputation capital to
achieve their purpose.

  Anyone who wants to label Toto as a coward when she chooses 
to used a veiled persona might want to read some of her posts
under her current Toto persona.
  The fact that she does not hesitate to call a ratfucker a
ratfucker as Toto hardly lends credence to the theory that
her reason for doing the same thing pseudo-anonymously is
an act of cowardice.

  She has always shown a propensity for offering praise, as well
as condemnation, to those on the list, as well as defending 
those whom she regards as being unjustly attacked, even if she
usually has a stance that is largely divergent with that of
the person.

  Rather than suggest that those posting anonymously have some
great fear of exposure, for whatever reason, I would suggest
that some of those posting under their own name on the list
might be better served to post anonymously, as it might save
them embarassment if they should ever get their head out of
their ass far enough to notice what imbeciles they are.

   Artist
"I draw flies."